render_depth_svg

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description itself must disclose behavior. It mentions that this tool is for 'SVG/PNG ファイル保存' and references preferFile/autoSave, implying file-saving side effects. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool returns SVG content, writes to disk by default, or what happens with the generated file. The fallback positioning is clear, but the actual operational behavior (return vs. save) is underspecified. This is adequate but not thorough given zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact but mixes languages and intertwines purpose, alternative routing, and usage instructions without clear separation. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first lines, which is good, but the structure is slightly chaotic (e.g., inline references to file saving and HTML embedding). It is not overly verbose, but the organization could be clearer for quick agent parsing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters (including a nested object), the description is insufficiently complete. It omits return value details, default behavior when autoSave/preferFile are not set, the meaning of pair and type, how depth.levels affects the output, and any error or edge-case handling. While the fallback context is useful, an agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only directly references preferFile and autoSave in the context of file saving, but does not define them. Parameters like pair, type, and the depth object (with levels) are completely unexplained. While defaults exist in the schema, the description adds no semantic meaning to guide the agent in setting these values, making this a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates an SVG for a depth chart / order book visualization, using specific terms like '板の深さチャートを SVG 生成' and 'bid-ask depth'. It explicitly positions itself as a fallback to prepare_depth_data, distinguishing it from that sibling and implying a distinct resource (SVG file). This is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's function without confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it says to prefer prepare_depth_data for client-side rendering (Claude.ai Visualizer), and to use this tool only for file saving (preferFile/autoSave) or file embedding. It names the alternative (prepare_depth_data) and the exact conditions for selection, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.